• Thank you to Carol and Steve Bowman, the forum owners, for our new upgrade!

does everyone have past lives?

Non linier incarnations

For instance, I am not entirely convinced that I have not lived this life over a couple of times now - trying out different decisions to see how that goes (this is a very interesting and comparatively comfortable historical period to be alive so why not?) I think this accounts for me sometimes having an idea of how things are going to/might 'turn out' and frequent de ja vu. (Bit like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day). It would also not surprise me if I had the 'next' life in ancient Egypt or better still, back in the golden age of jazz - that would be cool and why not? Who says I must always go 'forward' in linear time? Eh?


Wow! I never considered that possibility! This gives me something new to think about.
 
Hi everyone,

I'll throw in my two cents' worth:

I believe new souls are being created all the time. However, they go through VARIOUS stages until they reach the level of what we would call "human".

My own concept is one of linearity, progress and development. To me, the reason there are so many souls currently incarnated on Earth is because life is not restricted to this world, but to MANY orbes and realms, and it is common for Souls/Spirits to incarnate in different worlds. Also, if we look back, how many millions and millions of lives have there been even if just here on Earth? The millions of incarnating souls that exist are merely now having more vehicles available in which to incarnate in this globe, and apparently this is also occuring for a precious reason: the times of great changes we are currently going through.

Unlike Tanguerra, I do not see that it is possible for a Soul/Spirit to divide itself in past, present or future lives. To me, reincarnation is a sequential process. Each Soul is individual and unique and reincarnates sequentially with the purpose of purification, learning and progress. I am not doubting those who have experienced "simultaneousness", I just feel that there is another explanation for what has been experienced (Deborah has offered an interesting possible explanation for this in a thread called "Experience and Consciousness" in the "Science" section).
 
More food for thought

the reason there are so many souls currently incarnated on Earth is because life is not restricted to this world, but to MANY orbes and realms, and it is common for Souls/Spirits to incarnate in different worlds.


I have also thought of this possibility. It does seem to make sence; although the non sequential lives is an intriguing possibility. I will remain open-minded. There may be some truth to both ideas.
 
Hi Val,

"There may be some truth to both ideas."

Yes, I've often thought of this also. :thumbsup: But the great wonder is: how could it be both??? :confused: :rolleyes:
 
How could both be true?

I think two theories are developing; again risking the displeasure of Phoenix and Tanguerra I'd use the labels 'old testament reincarnation' and 'new testament reincarnation' for simplicity.

The former posits that time, which can be stretched, compressed, speeded up, slowed down, is essentially sequential, not even God can make it go back or put something from the here and now into history - and that goes for souls or consciousnesses. Here we are in the theological realms of karma, learning, spiritual evolution, progression towards God-ness.

New testament reincarnation, based on the latest theories and attempts to reconcile particle physics with the laws governing the galaxies and the macro-universe, holds that time is non-linear, an illusion, a dimension that can be jumped. String theory, eleven-dimension membranes, holographic multiverses, all fascinating stuff. Spiritually, these theories lead to bit of a free-for-all, where souls could get reincarnated into the past, on other planets, etc.

And I agree wholeheartedly with Charles - how could both theories be true?

Michal
 
I can't believe "old souls" could ever be serial killers. People who have lived many other lives have suffered and had intense relationships and are incapable of view others as mere objects. They have too much shared experience with the human race as a whole.

I would have to disagree strongly. First it assumes that age equals wisdom. This seems to be a popular conception but I personally don't consider it to be true. Sometimes it is, but old people are often more set in their ways, less likely to move forward and some are frankly bitter creul people. Progress is not implied by continued existence either. It's possible someone will live lifetime after lifetime with little change or little progress. Some people can have a wide variety of experiences, trials and tribulations, and yet still not learn from them. People who have suffered in life sometimes are inclined to behave similarly towards others, such as how abused people often become abusers themselves. Shared experiences with the human race doesn't imply making a person more empathetic with other human beings. Having numerous lifetimes of experience may just teach people how to manipulate others better. I consider it equally likely an "old" soul could be old and experienced in the art of creulty and brutality. A soul inclined towards sadism and maliciousness may, over the course of many lifetimes, perfect these behaviors to an art form. I also don't ascribe to the belief that everyone will change eventually, such as habitual criminals. Many serial killers and pyschopaths are also biologically insane and not in full control of their actions.

It's also possible for development to be uneven. Perhaps a person has lived many lives and developed compassion towards the poor or the disabled and devotes their life to helping them. What if it turns out however that this person is a religious fundamentalist who, in spite of their charitable attitude towards the poor, also ascribes to belief that women and blacks are sub-humans meant to be enslaved, that gays should be killed and favors wars of extermination against those of another faith. It's possible for a person to be kind, caring, deeply selfless and devoted to people like themselves, yet not think twice about acting the opposite to those outside their group. Perhaps then in their next life they'll be the opposite hated group, be charitable, selfless and devoted to that group, but have the same callousness and hatred towards another group of people, such as the group they were part of in the life before!

The concept of an old soul being morally superior doesn't take into account the circumstances of a particular lifetime. A person who under certain conditions may be a kind, caring person may under different conditions be just the opposite. Plenty of people claiming to be old souls, recalling "enlightened" lives back as far as Egypt or Atlantis, recall in recent times being slave owners, nazis, murderers etc. Almost makes me wonder if being a Nazi gives one a greater chance of recalling past lives next time, ironically. The old soul notion suggests that people are incapable of backsliding, reverting to older ways. Perhaps in earlier lives you had been a nasty person but over many lives in more tolerant or humane eras/cultures you improved. Now consider similar issues hidden long dormant re-emerge in a future era. Who's to say you won't make the same mistakes after not having been confronted with the issues for a long time. I recall lives in antiquity in which I was quite violent, brutal and militaristic. In other cultures over the next few centuries I did not fall into those patterns. Then as we approach the current era these issues and tendencies begin to re-emerge and have to be dealt with anew.

Here's a scenario if you can imagine it. I had read an Orwell essay in which he mentioned how history seemed to be moving backwards. Up until World War One society seemed to be progressing away from the mistakes of the past. Secularism, worker's rights, women's rights, ending slavery, faith in science and progress all seemed to be carrying us forward, away from the barbarisms that ruled us for centuries and millenia past. Then we hit the era of the World wars and we saw things re-emerge that had not be present for a long time. Leader worship, wars of conquest and extermination, enslavement of foreign peoples, torture, deportation and exile and SuperPowers, the new Empires. All this burst onto the world in just a short period of time. Even Helen Wambach observed, in her past life statistics, this violent turn around, with the 1800s being the least violent century in 4000 years, and the next century the most violent by a large majority. The World wars alone wiped out an amount of people equivalent to most of the Europe's population just a few centuries earlier. In the modern world we can see in just the past few years an enormous rise in fascism, religious fundamentalism and fanaticism and nationalism almost out of the blue. These things never went away, they were just not right in everyone's face.
 
Consider this. Let's say tommorrow all of Western Civilization was destroyed in a nuclear holocaust and a global dictatorship took over. All free thought is surpressed and people are now indoctrainated to believe in nothing and to treat everyone with brutality and creulty. Would all those old souls still behave in a kind and rational manner if they were taught from birth to equate morality with being the most brutal or relentless individual, with no memory of life any other way. I imagine the answer is no. I also could imagine alot of these "old souls" would not mind this new society so long as they were at the top of this new pecking order.

This is of course an extreme example but I think it gets the point across. To determine what is right, just, moral and wise is so subjective that it's the main reason there is little agreement on these matters from culture to culture and person to person. This is the main reason for my rejecting any belief in moral absolutes or one absolute reality. I am of the belief that human nature and spiritual identity from life to life is immensely more complex than we think and we can not so easily be grouped into hierarchal classifications as many would prefer to believe. Reality is subjective, human beings are extremely malleable and subject to the views of stronger personalities.

Of all the various spiritual theories of soul rankings, moral hierarchies and whatnot that I have heard of, the one that seems the most sensible is one I heard called Service to Self vs Service to Others. It's simple, if you think and honestly care about others equally as or more than yourself you are a service to others individual. If you think about yourself 95% of the time and almost never think or care about others except for what they can do for you, you are a self server. Then there is the vast majority who are undecided and still working out where they are through the process of incarnation. The only reward or punishment is to be with your own kind until, through your ACTIONS and INTENT, you decide otherwise. Doesn't mean it's true, but it still makes the most sense of anything I've heard so far. As an aside, one of the hallmark features of the Self Servers was said to be they had a strong need to have a hierarchal society in which everyone was aware of their place in the pecking order. Sounds like alot of New Age people are definately Self-Servers, if that is true, IF.
 
Hi Michal,

I am forced to agree with you too. I can't see how "evolution and progress" of souls can fit into a concept that implies receding, soul-splitting or simultaneousness. I also cannot envisage that I, as Soul/Consciousness, can be elsewhere if not as who "I AM"...
 
Elements of both ideas.

I never really think in absolutes. I lean toward the belief that all souls were created at the same time, as Edgar Cayce claims. Whether or not they evolve in a linier fashion, I won't even pretend to know. I feel there may be many different realms of existance and/or other worlds where souls may incarnate if they choose.

As for incarnating in a non-linier fashion; the idea is fasinating to me, but I don't know enough about it to form an opinion.

What I meant by "could both be true" is that maybe some elements of both ideas may be true; such as, maybe all souls were created at the same time, and some choose to incarnate in a linier fashion while others choose non-linier, and many souls may choose not to enter the physical realm at all. I don't think in scientific terms on this, because what may be true in the physical world may not necessarily be true in the spiritual realm.

I guess I just don't like to put limitations on God's universe.
 
michaldembinski said:
How could both be true?

I think two theories are developing; again risking the displeasure of Phoenix and Tanguerra I'd use the labels 'old testament reincarnation' and 'new testament reincarnation' for simplicity.

Why would I be displeased?

You explained your labels clearly and succinctly, and your division of the more traditional 'old testament' reincarnation theories and the 'new testament' theories that have developed along with new theories in science, particularly physics, really helps to sort out the many, many beliefs which have developed and continue to develop throughout our ongoing human history.

I definitely fall into the old testament category (I'm kickin' it old skool).

Phoenix
 
Val said:
I lean toward the belief that all souls were created at the same time

I believe that at The Beginning (currently supposed to be the Big Bang - or a Big Bang) were created simple atoms which fused to become heavier atoms, which in time formed compounds from which life emerged, from which conscious life emerged... but right at that beginning, within every single hydrogen atom, was consciousness and will in minute quantities. God's purpose, the Universal Will, was the evolution of the Spirit, of consciousness. So yes, all souls were created at the same time - but some (indeed most!) are still simple atoms, while our spirits have evolved to higher levels of consciousness. How far we have to go before we reach the ultimate level of consciousness!

Michal
 
There's no such thing as time

Hello Michal and everyone,

No, like Phoenix, I am in no way displeased by being disagreed with. In the nicest possible way, I don't care if other people hold views different to my own. I like a good discussion, particularly when people are able to clearly express why they find themselves in disagreement. This is good exercise for the brain and excellent practice in being able to formulate and express a coherent point of view. Saying "I just don't believe it", however, is not an argument. Saying: "I don't believe x because I believe y" is also not an argument unless you can say why you believe y. "It is written" is not a reasoned argument either.

-----
Cue: Monty Python Argument sketch: -
This isn't an argument
Yes it is!
No it isn't!
You're just contradicting everything I say!
No I'm not!
-----

However, that said in this particular area it will be very difficult to come up with any definitive answer, in any event, and we are all going to be restricted to our personal opinions, experience and understandings given what reading we have done in this area and so on.

I do like Val's willingness to think about these things before dismissing them, use her independent imagination and wonder if there might be a way to reconcile these different theories and if so how. There may not be a definitive answer. The 'truth' however you conceive it may lie somewhere in between, after all. (eg. perhaps we are not having separate lives at all but our mind/body/current incarnation is tuning into one giant conglomerate consciousness just like a radio picking up a particular station, listening to our preferred programs which are nonetheless continuously and simultaneously being transmitted??? Disclaimer: Just a metaphor - designed to stimulate imagination, not be taken literally.)

I fully understand that it can be extremely difficult to conceive of a separate dimension such as the "world of the spirit" (however you want to name it) where linear time does not exist, where things do not grow old, are never created, and never die - they simply are. This dimension has nothing whatever to do with the behaviour of atoms (which are being found to behave ever more strangely and 'unpredictably' than once thought, by the way - but let's not digress).

I fully understand that the normal functioning human mind likes a nice linear 'story', a narrative, form and pattern, in order to compute concepts. This is how our minds have evolved and with good reason and for most practical purposes this works very well.

Consider, however, how difficult it was for people to grasp that the earth was round when every sense, including 'common', told them otherwise. It became much easier to get it, and convince the last few hold outs, once the first pictures of the earth as a globe started coming back from the early rocket ships. In fact, it became impossible to deny (except by a certain determined fringe - but you are always going to get them).

I can only grasp this myself because I remember what it is like in the spirit world between lives and I occasionally sort of 'pop out' of this existence "time to time" and just 'be' with my eternal self. So, it is more simple for me.

Zetascair I like your thinking. Of course, age is nothing to do with anything (even if it existed in the soul). I remember incarnations in ancient Africa - we're talking very ancient. There weren't even too many humans around back then. I know I have been 'kicking around' since 'time' immemorial. Does not make me Wonder Woman, just is what it is. I don't attach any moral characteristics to it.
 
Back
Top